Danger Ahead

     According to a Senate Appropriations Committee report(page 77), the Social Security Administration would suffer a major blow if the budget cuts provided for in last year's budget deal are applied uniformly across the board to all domestic agencies. Social Security would lose 5,000 employees and all of the agency's employees and all Disability Determination Services employees would suffer approximately six weeks of furloughs. The average processing time at the initial level on disability claims would raise from 111 days to 180 days and the number of pending disability claims would nearly double from 861,000 to almost 1.5 million by the end of the fiscal year.

     Let me state again that this report assumes that the sequestration would be applied uniformly across all agencies. Neither the appropriations bill reported out of committee in the Senate nor the appropriations bill reported out of subcommittee in the House would do that. They would cut Social Security but not as badly as the sequestration. We have not heard exactly what the results would be under the House or Senate bills but there would still be considerable pain for Social Security. That does not mean that this report means nothing. We are a long way from any appropriations bill passing Congress. I can certainly predict that it will not happen before the election and probably won't happen for six months or more into the fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2012. This report shows what will happen if we go into a Continuing Funding (CR) Resolution to keep government going, which is almost certain to happen, and the CR is at the sequestration rate, which may or may not happen, and Social Security is not protected -- which is a very real possibility. These dramatic reductions in Social Security's administrative budget could happen before the election and could extend well past the election regardless of who is elected President. It could even last the entire fiscal year.

     Don't assume that Social Security will be protected from this disaster. Other agencies have their own arguments for protection from sequestration. Exempt Social Security and some other agency gets hit even harder. If Congress can't pass an actual appropriations bill that deals rationally with sequestration, how will it get its act together well enough to craft a CR that makes a rational allocation of the pain of sequestration?

I Haven't Noticed Social Security Changing Its Notices To Make Them Easier To Understand -- Have You?

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Advocates for plain language have issued their first report card on how clearly federal agencies communicate with taxpayers and others — and the Social Security Administration has drawn a pair of C's.
That put the Woodlawn-based administration in the middle of the dozen agencies assessed by the Center for Plain Language. The Washington-based organization promotes clear, easy-to-understand communication in government, business, nonprofits and academia.
On the first anniversary of the Plain Writing Act, the center graded each agency this month on how well it has met the requirements of the law and how well it has followed the "spirit" of the legislation. The Social Security Administration earned C's in each category. ...
A spokesman for the Social Security Administration said the agency strongly encourages plain writing, "because it is important that our millions of public communications are clear and concise."
"Even prior to the Plain Writing Act, we began a massive overhaul of our online services, our notices, and even our internal instructions to adhere to the principles of plain language," spokesman Mark Hinkle said. "We know that we can do more to improve our communications."
But Hinkle also defended the agency, saying the report card focused more on the process of conforming to the law than the agency's actual communications.

AC Policy On Extensions Of Time

     The most recent newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) includes this recent memo concerning Appeals Council policy on extensions of time to submit additional materials. It's nothing earth shaking but it's the sort of thing that needs to be in the public record. I know that this cannot be viewed from Social Security computers but you should have other ways of finding this document. Posting it on Scribd puts it in a more accessible archive than just putting it on this blog. Besides, Social Security ought to unblock Scribd. There's nothing dangerous about Scribd.

AC Extensions Policy

The Downside Of Receiving Social Security Benefits Via Debit Card

      I posted over the weekend about a study showing that the vast majority of those who receive their Social Security benefits via government issued debit card are pleased with the arrangement. Susan Tompor writing in the Detroit Free Press writes about the downside of these debit cards -- fees and costs -- and of ways of avoiding them. If you deal with those who use these debit cards, note in particular the areas below that I have bolded and there's one part so important and so little known that I have put it in a larger font:

A study released last week showed that 95% of cardholders are satisfied with the Direct Express card. About 93% would recommend the card to someone else. More than 2 million active cardholders receive Social Security retirement benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits, as well as other benefits.

Thankfully, the government's debit card does not have the outrageous fees of other prepaid debit-card plastic that you might pick up off the shelf at the store.
But it doesn't mean consumers are completely off the hook.

One free ATM withdrawal is allowed each month on the Direct Express Debit MasterCard. Additional ATM withdrawals are 90 cents.

To get one free ATM withdrawal, consumers must go to one of about 60,000 ATMs in the network. That network includes ATMs at Comerica Bank, Charter One, PNC Bank, Privileged Status, Alliance One, the MasterCard ATM Alliance and MoneyPass.

Plenty of bank names, though, aren't in the network. And it could cost up to $3 or so a pop to get access to your Social Security money at some ATMs -- no free withdrawals -- if you go out of the network. ...

A consumer with the Direct Express card could go to any bank or credit union that displays the MasterCard acceptance mark and get cash from a teller -- not an ATM -- free of charge. ...

There is a $1.50 fee to transfer money from the card to a personal bank account. ...

There's a 75-cent monthly fee to get a paper statement. ...

One free replacement of the card is allowed each year. After that, there is a $4 fee to replace the card. If you wanted to expedite the replacement, there's a $13.30 fee, too.

New Ruling On Fibromyalgia

     Social Security will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow a Ruling 12-2p on the evaluation of fibromyalgia in disability claims. The ruling states that "FM [Fibromyalgia] is an MDI [Medically Determinable Impairment] when it is established by appropriate medical evidence. FM can be the basis for a finding of disability." The ruling specifies that either the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia or the 2010 ACR Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria may be used to determine if the claimant has FM as a MDI. 

     As to determining Residual Functional Capacity, the Ruling states that (footnotes omitted):

Widespread pain and other symptoms associated with FM, such as fatigue, may result in exertional limitations that prevent a person from doing the full range of unskilled work in one or more of the exertional categories ... People with FM may also have nonexertional physical or mental limitations because of their pain or other symptoms. Some may have environmental restrictions, which are also nonexertional.

      The problem with the Ruling is that it demands that a physician write down a long list of the factors used in the ACR criteria which led to the diagnosis of FM. Even rheumatologists don't do that generally any more than psychiatrists record each factor leading to a diagnosis of major depression. If you're a specialist, you may "know it when you see it" without bothering to record each step leading to the diagnosis.

Don't Blame Social Security

     From WOAI:

Knowing how tight money is at the federal level one local company is questioning Social Security spending right here in San Antonio. The agency has decided to move one of its offices .... The two locations are just seven miles apart.

"The figures we're talking about are astronomical,” Henry Bonilla, former US Representative, told us.

Henry Bonilla is a consultant for MAGI Realty. Since June of 1985 the Social Security Administration has been one of their tenants. But back in February SSA signed a new lease agreement with another company. ...

The new lease agreement says before moving in Social Security will pay to renovate the building off San Pedro. The cost for improvements is $1,749,169.

But rent is also going up. At the old place, found off Woodcock Drive, SSA was paying $500,249 a year for 30,079 square feet. The new location has 32,369 square feet and Social Security will pay $1,062,089 a year for the first ten years. ...
 
We reached out to the Social Security Administration to ask about the costs associated with their new move. A representative out of Dallas sent us this response: "This office is hiring more judges and more staff to serve the public. The prior location could not accommodate the need for additional space."

      There is one thing anyone considering this story needs to know immediately. For better or worse, Social Security wasn't responsible for this leasing decision. That's done for all federal agencies by the General Services Administration (GSA). Social Security has a say but it's GSA's call.
     The reason for this move may be as simple as the one indicated by the Social Security spokesperson -- the agency needed more space than it could get at its old location. Obviously, there could have been other problems with the old location. We just don't know about that. The article also mentions the difference in the rental rates at the two sites. Undoubtedly, this article is giving the rental rate on the old site at the rate Social Security was paying under its old lease. What rate was MAGI offering on a new lease? What sort of renovations were they willing to do to get a new lease and who was going to pay for those renovations? That's often the game when you're negotiating office leases.
     Leasing office space is a complicated matter. I've done it for spaces a fraction the size of the one being discussed here. Even with the help of a good realtor who specializes in representing commercial tenants, I've found it confusing. It's way different from leasing an apartment. We do know that GSA handles lots and lots of leases. The agency has an incredible amount of experience in handling office leasing matters. Historically, the problem at GSA hasn't been making bad decisions on leases. The problem has been how long it takes GSA to make decisions on leases.
     Hiring a former Congressman to lobby for you on a federal office space lease? I hope this is not a common thing.
     If you've got such a great office space, why would you worry so much about losing a tenant? Wouldn't you expect to find a new tenant soon enough?

Those Who Want To Cut Social Security Never Let Up

     Dean Baker writing at FDL warns that corporate executives are working behind the scenes to pressure Congress into accepting a budget deal that would include cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

GAO Report Wonders Why Computers Can't Determine Disability; Also, SSA Says Final Mental Impairment Listings To Come Out This Year (I'm Dubious) And Problems With The OIS Project

     The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on Modernizing SSA [Social Security Administration] Disability Programs. GAO wants Social Security to take "modern views of disability." GAO thinks that "modern views of disability" would include (with my comments in brackets and italicized):

• Incorporating criteria in the Listings of Impairments that would specify the extent to which certain impairments limit functional ability [You're naive, GAO. SSA already has residual functional capacity guidelines used at the initial and reconsideration levels. They can't put them in the Listings. They can't publish them. They don't want them in writing. They deny they exist. This is because they cannot justify them. But they do exist. They're disseminated and enforced through the quality assurance program.]
• Finding ways of measuring functional ability [Right. Just as soon as someone manages to invent a machine that measures pain or depression.]
• Developing "a computerized tool to assist adjudicators in evaluating how various impairments affect an individual’s function and ability to work."[GAO is saying that since computers can do such wonderful things they must surely be able to determine residual functional capacity better than individuals. You guys at GAO have never read a Social Security disability file, have you?]
• Understand that "Modern concepts focus on an individual’s functional abilities in the workplace environment, including consideration of the presence or lack of assistance, for example, per the requirements for reasonable accommodation by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990." [Social Security has rejected the reasonable accommodation route. You're not getting around this without legislation. Even if legislation were passed, I don't think anyone can say how SSA could incorporate reasonable accommodation into disability determination. Even though the ADA was high-minded, it was terrible vague. It's been interpreted nearly out of existence by the Supreme Court. In the real world, the ADA has meant little. Also, if you put reasonable accommodation into the Social Security Act, you might have to amend the ADA to make it really mean something and we know that business interests would fight that tooth and nail.]

     The report contains the statement that "SSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise its listings of mental disorders in 2010 and has told us that it plans to finalize this comprehensive revision by the end of 2012 ..." We shall see. It's late July  and Social Security still hasn't submitted this to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Once they do, it will take OMB three months or so to study it and it's far from clear that OMB sees eye to eye with Commissioner Astrue on this. Maybe they think they can get the mental impairment Listings approved and published after the election but I have a hard time seeing OMB approving any final rule on this with Michael Astrue's term as Commissioner about to expire unless the new Listing is exceedingly non-controversial. If the final rule was to be exceedingly non-controversial, I think it would have already happened. I think this one will still be on the desk when the next Commissioner arrives sometime next year.

     The report also indicates that Social Security is having problems coming up with a sufficient budget to pursue its Occupational Information System (OIS) project. The project is being delayed due to lack of personnel. The full extent of the problem is unclear since Social Security seems to have little idea how much the full program is going to cost. According to the report:

Without any estimate for the cost of producing the OIS, SSA risks designing a system that would not be a viable or affordable option to complete. Additionally, without maintenance cost estimates, SSA is at risk of designing a system that would be too costly to maintain on a regular basis resulting in outdated information.

     GAO says that Social Security could face "broader challenges" to its OIS project but that SSA "has not done a formal risk analysis of these challenges." According to GAO, these risks include:

• SSA’s lack of expertise with designing an OIS
• Cost of maintaining an OIS
• SSA's history of difficulty managing large, multiyear projects

     OMB should mention but does not the even bigger issue of the legal defensibility of whatever the OIS project produces. Social Security seems to be a bit nervous about this issue. I think they should be extremely nervous about this issue. How does it look if SSA spends several years and a few hundred million dollars on the OIS project and it all goes up in smoke in federal court? Can anyone say there is no risk of that happening? Can anyone quantify that risk? Can anyone predict the fallout if that happens?